Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 647


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Significant consensus is present for Keep, with editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 647

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable incident. There was neither a significant loss of life, nor was there any new regulation(s) introduced as a result. And while it was a complete hull loss, it was a non-commercial non-passenger flight, and wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses. (It fails WP:AIRCRASH too as far as I can tell.) Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû   (blah?)  05:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Biography of a plane notable for only one event. WP:EVENT requires the event to be the subject of ongoing and sustained coverage demonstrating its historic notability, for it to have impact on a wide demographic or geographic swathe, or be the catalyst or result of another notable event. It does not meet these criteria. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability requirements for this article should be taken from WP:AIRCRASH, considering that all air crashes, including those that result in loss of life, are a single event. As for sustained coverage, please see the article. Silver  seren C 09:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:AIRCRASH is a project level essay, and so non-binding on two separate counts. Even were it a guideline or, gasp, a policy, it would still be subservient to WP:N as elaborated by the documented community consensus at WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article could be improved, and sources are availale to do this (Aviation Safety Network, NTSB report), but needing improvment is not a reason to delete. In response to the nominator's rationale, the NTSB report identified issues with ATC at Memphis did not give fire-fighting vehicles sufficient priority in accessing the airport, delaying their reaching the burning aircraft. One would trust that the issues were addressed as a result of the investigation. Another issue raised was insufficient training of FedEx Express employees in the use of emergency evacuation slides, leading to the incorrect deployment of a slide as a life raft as intended in the case of a ditching. Again, one would trust that this issue was addressed (they were, section 1.17.2.5, NTSB report gives details). I accept that this was a training flight, but the severity of the accident gives sufficient notability to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects notified Mjroots (talk)
 * Not every legislative change is notable, and the one you're referring to sounds like it's at the lower end of the scale and probably non notable, even if it weren't in the future and therefore irrelevant . The article can be recreated at such time as you're able to demonstrate the crash is a precursor to another notable event. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no WP:CRYSTAL issues in my rationale. The event happened 7 years ago, I have already shown that the training issues were addressed by FedEx. It is almost a certainty that the fire-fighting issues raised in the NTSB report were also addressed. Failure to address them would have left the agencies involved open to claims of negligence should another accident occur and firefighters were again delayed in reaching a burning aircraft because ATC did not give them priority clearance on the surface, even if doing so meant ordering aircraft to abort landings or take-offs. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I read "one would trust" as speculation on them happening, rather than speculation on their causation. I withdraw my comments about WP:CRYSTAL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added some references to the article. This article meets criteria #2 for airline articles, "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport". Silver  seren C 09:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no criteria for airline articles, and if there were they would still be subservient to the general notability guidelines as explained at WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And what about the current sources doesn't meet the GNG? They discuss the crash in significant detail. Silver  seren C 09:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The point is, why is the crash, and this aircraft, important? It was not a commercial passenger flight; it was a cargo flight that happened to crash. These things are a dime a dozen. The five passengers mentioned in the article are actual "deadheading" flight personnel. The WP:AIRCRASH] essay lists limitations on small personal aircraft crashes for notability, but guidelines are so vague when it comes to non-commercial large aircraft one really needs to defer to WP:EVENT and general notability guidelines. -- (nominator)  Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû   (blah?)  10:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And to answer the question, they don't satsify the GNG because they don't overcome the tests of WP:EVENT, which is the community consensus on which notable events are encyclopaedic enough to overcome the barrier that Wikipedia is not a news service. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? The DC-10-10 is not a small GA aircraft. It is an airliner with a Maximum Take-Off Weight approaching 200 tonnes. The accident led to the loss of this particular aircraft. The aircraft was a commercial aircraft, FedEx were not using it for their own pleasure, but to earn themselves more profit. All sources in the article are independent of FedEx, thus establishing verification x (third party) reliable sources = notability. WP:NOTNEWS is something that is applied to articles on current events, not something that is now 7 years old, i.e, HISTORY. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS applies to newsworthy events, not current events. A topic that failed the hurdle of NOTNEWS would not become acceptable merely by the passage of time.  It would need to demonstrate that it had ongoing coverage.  So in this case, you'd need to show that people are still talking about and discussing this crash seven years later. If I've overlooked a source that shows that, please correct me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be continuing coverage up until right now at this very second. It has to be coverage that happened a significant time after the accident. The coverage from 2005 would meet that requirement. Silver  seren C 10:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "2005 coverage" is (a watchdog blog summarising and re-posting) a report produced by a government instrumentality responding directly to the initial crash. This is routine coverage; a similar document is produced in respect of every aviation incident.  It's not evidence of ongoing discussion and significance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aviation Week & Space Technology is a watchdog blog? Silver  seren C 10:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to the Aviation Safety Network, and this link to them from the article. What were you referring to?  We might be at cross purposes! - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the second reference in the article, this. Silver  seren C 10:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I see, sorry. No, that article, like Aviation Safety Network, is just responding to the release of the government report in that week.  It's a routine part of any aviation event, and the chronological distance from the event is only due to the government taking so long to complete the inquiry.  It's much the same as in the death of a non-notable individual, where the deceased's estate may take years after their death to finalise, resulting in the eventual public publication of a court grant of probate, but doesn't go to show the enduring historical significance of the deceased. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment It appears that both DustFormsWords and Mukkakukaku wish to argue every point and counter-point raised. I've given my reasons as to why I believe the event is notable, and will not make any further contribution to this debate unless asked a direct question. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I only intended to clarify my original nomination wrt points being brought up; I've fixed the indentation on the previous comment. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?)  10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can comment as much as you like (as you have done with the informative hull loss stats), rest assured Mjroots is quite wrong in his long held but mistaken belief that Afd is not a debate. Infact, given that some people are not even addressing your nomination reason as they vote keep, it's even more pertinent that you stick around to clarify anyone's current or future misunderstandings about why you want the article deleted, and what policies, guidelines and logic you are invoking to do so. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Air crashes often attract enough coverage to seem superficially to satisfy the WP:GNG. However, in my view, they generally fail WP:EVENT, specifically WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PERSISTENCE. This one is no exception.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The NTSB reports are clearly sufficiently RS to support fixing the article. The problem identified in FAA Order 8400 is clearly of ongoing significance. (Has the FAA corrected it yet?) Just one time, I wish I could see evidence that everyone arguing for deletion has made some kind of effort to improve the article discussed before doing so.LeadSongDog come howl!  14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should those of us with limited time on our hands feel under some kind of an obligation to improve an article that we think should be deleted? If anyone voting delete here thought the article could be improved sufficiently to be kept, then they were wrong to !vote delete, but I see no evidence of that. Therefore, I'd thank you to restrict your comments to the article, and not to the other commenters.-- K orr u ski Talk 17:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a comment on process, not on people. Until the effort is made to find them, it isn't possible to form an informed statement on the availability of sources. In this case, as many before, a few minutes of looking found reliable sources that the article previously did not use. It seems an obvious step that the AFD process should include.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This fails EVENT pretty comprehensively, per the nom and others. It's pretty pointless claiming the ASN is WP:N-worthy evidence of notability, their mission is to cover the industry, and as such, they cover everything and anything aircrash related, irrespective of real world notability (and the sole outside source they list for their 'narrative' coverage of this crash is...the NTSB report). And on that score, it is completely invalid to claim the NTSB report is WP:N worthy evidence, they report on all crashes irrespective of historical notability, it's their legal function, and as such it is arguably a non-independent WP:PRIMARY source for the purposes of WP:N (although bizarrely, there are people out there who argue it is a secondary source just like any other peer reviewed research paper!). The 2008 Bangash book, provided as a general reference, appears to be completely irrelevant as regards WP:N, as it only lists this crash as part of a list of crashes, without any accompanying commentary or analysis that I can see - this is practically the definition of a passing mention for the purposes of WP:N. If further analysis in there exists, more page numbers would be useful. The only remotely relevant source presented to support the claim that this was a noteworthy crash with lasting, noted and noteworthy effects (again, a common fallacy in these Afds is that if it is not afforded a whole article on Wikipedia, we are not 'covering' it - which is pure nonsense), is the Aviation Week & Space Technology piece. But that should be seen in the context that it is in effect a trade journal, and it is simply summarizing the contents of the report at the time it was published, as any other topic specific news organisation would. If that's it, it's not convincing in terms of meeting EVENT, not if people accept that Wikipedia is a general reference work which only dedicates whole articles to truly notable aspects of specific fields, rather than arguing it is simply one part of the general Aviation information and research body of historical record (as many people frequently argue, against our mission). If there is any further evidence out there in the form of reliable Wikipedia suitable secondary sources, that assert with their in-depth and detailed coverage of this incident that they consider this crash a defining moment in the training and regulation of the aviation industry, rather than the rather underwhelming reception of the recommendations detailed in this report, then I'd more than happily review them wrt to my vote, but they certainly do not appear to have been found yet to justify any of the claims being made in this Afd from the keep viewpoint with regards to historical impact. Given that the report came out in May 2005, and it happened in America, there can be no excuse for anybody failing to provide this sort of evidence, as the excuses for failing to do that in other Afds such as incidents occuring before the internet age, or occuring in a WP:CSB prone country, or for being too recent to judge lasting effects so 'keep for now' (not that this has ever been policy), are completely irrelevant here. It should be noted that while this is not one of the many such articles created based on the immediate news coverage, which has made any Afd debate completely pointless with regards to EFFECT, the sole source used for the article's state at creation appears to have been the NTSB report, and in terms of asserting notability, it's hard to see how it has really been developed in that regard. The only current development spurred by this Afd appears to be just adding more of the report's detail. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The accident may not have killed anybody, but the investigation reports by the NTSB and the follow-up reports in the aviation press indicate that it identified some serious safety issues with lasting implications for the aviation industry. Regarding the accident severity, there were injuries, and if there had been more than seven people on the plane (or if the people on the plane hadn't been trained pilots), there likely would have been fatalities. Remember that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia -- this might not get an article in a print encyclopedia, but it is plenty significant enough in the world of aviation to merit inclusion here. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reports? Plural? There is only one report here that can be described as the 'Aviation Press' in the conventional sense, the Aviation Week & Space Technology piece. The ASN does have print publications, but the 'report' referenced here is their database entry. And both of these sources have clearly done nothing more than use the NTSB as their only source - their coverage contains no in depth reporting and no further analysis. There is nothing in their mere existence to support your claim it was 'plenty significant enough' for the Aviation industry, unless you are under the (wrong) assumption that for example, the ASN doesn't create entries for every crash, or publications like AWST would not normally report on the publication of final reports of all incidents of this size in exactly this way. As for their actual contents, I'd say it's pretty underwhelming as far as evidence of significance goes. WP:OR aside, if you really want to claim that these were significant findings or changes for the industry, then one would expect better evidence would have emerged by now, well after the AWST's news report, to support that assertion. The relevance of NOTPAPER is hard to see, it's not like EVENT was written for a paper encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * or publications like AWST would not normally report on the publication of final reports of all incidents of this size in exactly this way - actually, I'm pretty sure they don't. It's been my experience that most accidents of this type don't merit publication of their final report in AW&ST. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. The closer should be aware that in addition to the Project notifications above, this Afd was also brought to the attention of the Article Rescue Squadron in this note. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not questioning or challenging, just genuinely curious as to how ARS notification would affect the closing. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting I was canvassing, Mick? The note on the ARS talk page was in accordance with the instructions given at WP:ARS - feel free to ask what other editors think on the project talk page, which I did. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Mjroots, as an admin yourself, here's the point where you really need to stop and think about what you are suggesting about others, rather than worrying about what you think others are suggesting about you. As regards canvassing, it appears to me you've already decided that it is such a suggestion, even though it is as everyone can see, a simple note, nothing more, nothing less. Unless you think there is a good reason not to inform the closer that this discussion has been raised at a high traffic noticeboard like the ARS? Your belief that this simple note is an improper allegation of canvassing, and your chosen way of dealing with it, is markedly similar to the persistant misunderstanding of yours that there is something wrong with people freely debating in an Afd, despite being told by others, even other admins whose business it is after all to judge such debates, that this is a policy interpretation of your own making, which is completely counter to the entire purpose of the exercise. Infact, it's dubious that it can even be called an interpretation, it's just flat wrong. If you don't want to participate, fine, then just leave the discussion, don't post here, or anywhere else about it for that matter. Don't waste other people's time returning here or going elsewhere to cast aspersions on participants who are here to debate the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Methinks thou dost protest too much. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried ignoring it, it didn't work. I tried an Rfc on it, it didn't work. Short of a bit of well-meritted protesting nowadays, well, I'm sure if he looks in his admin handbook he can see what other limited options he is leaving me. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find it honestly bizzare to see the article described as a biography of an aircraft. And also in the various air-crash AfD's I've seen, no matter how acrimonious the debate got (and it gets pretty nasty sometimes!), WP:EVENT has never been brought up. WP:AIRCRASH may be a "project-level essay", but it is still the standard used for the evaluation of aircraft-crash articles to determine if they should be deleted on grounds of notability. In addition, invoking WP:NOTNEWS on an event that occured in 2003, and didn't have an article created until 2006, is, IMHO, picayune and stretching the definition of "not news" considerably (is something still "news" three years after the event? How about seven years?). It should also be noted that the crash and its NTSB report are cited in books published in 2008  and 2009  - thus demonstrating 'continued coverage'.- The Bushranger One ping only 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ("Biography of a plane notable for one event" was a play on words, referencing our policy on biographies of persons notable for only one event. I'll admit that it wasn't a good bit of wordplay.  Sorry for the confusion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sometimes my brain is far too literal and I miss obvious jokes, which is odd because I'm a bit of a punster. Sorry for misunderstanding! - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * EVENT has always been part of AIRCRASH, both the old version, and the new one, which effectively simply says - to have an article, it must meet the GNG, EVENT and NOTNEWS. It cannot be more clearer than that that EVENT is relevant to aircrashes. And I don't see what coverage you are claiming from those book refs. #1 was already in the article, and consists of a single list entry it seems. #2 obviously used it as a ref for it's contents, but how? why? #3 is not even displaying for me, so I cannot see what you are calling coverage there. We definitely need more info than just bare links to assess those. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that WP:EVENT is part of WP:AIRCRASH; it is and should be. It's just that citing WP:EVENT in and of itself, in a context saying 'use WP:EVENT not WP:AIRCRASH', struck me as being distinctly odd. And what I'm calling coverage in all cases is that the crash is clearly considered significant enough to appear in studies of the subject. The third ref, from the snip on the Google Books result page for "Express Flight 467", appears to be using the report as a reference as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AIRCRASH is not ignorable in terms of recognising that for aviation, some editors consider "changes to procedures, regulations or processes" as evidence of lasting impact, but it does not over-ride EVENT, which requires lasting coverage to that effect, to support a separate article. In terms of the books, just knowing that the report was referenced by them is not exactly informative. It could be supporting one paragraph, or an entire chapter, without further info, who knows what it is referencing? Clearly, EVENT requires at least one of them to be mentioning the crash and one or more of the resulting changes, to be remotely relevant as 'coverage'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: These AfDs are similar: FedEx Flight 597 and FedEx Flight 7145. --OldManInACoffeeCan (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (an authorized alt of Mukkakukaku)
 * Why are you using an alt? Silver  seren C 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It says on the user page that's for access from public terminals. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For info: Fedex 597 was an uncontained engine failure on a DC-10-10, with a successful 2-engine landing being performed. FedEx 7145 was an inflight cargo fire on a Fokker F-27 Mk.500 which was dealt with on the ground. Niehter was as severe as the accident under discussion here. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment -- I chose those because they were other FedEx Flights. Otherwise, I'm just going to point people to Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Plan Accidents (1959-2009), published by Boeing. The key part is page 18 of the PDF: from 2000-2009 there have been 138 hull losses of passenger aircraft, 52 of cargo, 8 of "other" for a total of 198; from 1959-2009 there were 659 passenger aircraft hull losses, 164 cargo hull losses, and 73 "other" hull losses for a total of 896. And this is only for Boeing aircraft. (direct link to PDF). Just saying that "hull loss" as a notability indicator is opening a scary big can of worms. - Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?)  16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT exist to prevent routine news stories from having articles simply because they were reported in the news. WP:NOTNEWS even states this so:
 * "..routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
 * Sorry, but a DC-10 landing gear collapse and crash landing is not routine nor anything like the disqualifying-criteria explained in the policy. Easily passes WP:GNG.(Edit: It easily passes GNG by the very in-depth significant coverage given to this topic by the sources in the article.  I will not cater to MickMacNee completely absurd demand that I cut and past those entire sources into this AfD, ostensibly to pander to his "argument by assertion" rebuttal.  It is childish and a complete waste of bandwidth.--Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)) --Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the closer's benefit as much as yourself Oakshade, this here is a strawman argument. The stated reason for deletion is not NOT#NEWS, and EVENT does not exist just to keep out articles sourced to news reports. EVENT is being cited here as the goto notability guideline to judge whether "past real events" are notable or not, irrespective of the contemporary news coverage, and given that the article was created 3 years after the event, and even now it only contains one contemporary news type reference, this keep rationale does not address the reason for deletion, and neither does the vaguewave to the GNG tacked onto the end of it, given the sparcity of any in depth secondary souring used in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee, stop embarrassing yourself and learn what a straw man argument is before bandying it about. It's when someone of an opposing view invents their opponent's argument and then argues against that invented stance.  In fact, deletion advocate DustFormsWords has invoked WP:NOTNEWS twice in this afd. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? You can clearly see above that the Afd nominator is, not DustFormsWords, and the deletion rationale he posted is here, in which he never mentions NOT#NEWS once, or even comes close to referring to it as a deletion reason. User DustFormsWords can say whatever he likes, he can invoke purple flying monkeys as his own deletion reasons for all it matters, you are not required to answer his reasons at all as a minimum contribution (although it is worth everyone's while that if people have valid objectoins to other people's valid arguments, then they should say so, as that is after all the whole point of this debate, to test each other's arguments against logic and policy, in order to allow the consensus view to be determined). But as an absolute minimum, in terms of properly contributing to an Afd at all, the only thing you are required to do, is to answer the nominator's deletion rationale (as long as his nomination is a valid one, which it clearly is). Even then, you are not even required to give a good rebuttal at all, but of course as everybody should know having read the destructions for this process beforehand as is advised, some arguments are better than others. Because Wikipedia does not have any defined inclusion criteria, and we only have defined exclusion criteria, some of which the deletion nominator has invoked here, then in attempting to rebut an Afd rationale, you cannot very well expect to validly argue to keep an article by pointing out how it doesn't violate some other exclusion criteria that the nominator never mentioned, can you? That is why your post was a strawman. This is a step up from WP:NOTAVOTE I grant you, but it's still basic Afd procedural stuff nonetheless, so I fail to see how I've embarassed myself by pointing it out. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for invalidating DustFormsWords "delete" vote as "purple flying monkeys" which is kind of what it was and everyone is perfectly allowed to counter a bad argument and there is no requirement to answer the nominator's deletion rational. None.  We should explain why we think an article should be kept or deleted and this article passing WP:GNG (has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) is a very strong explanation of why this should be kept.  Thanks for agreeing with me on a "delete" vote's week argument. --Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't agree with you on anything, that's in your imagination. Your idea of what constitues a "very strong" argument, is ironically, pretty weak. Anyone can copy and paste that magic phrase into any Afd, it takes no particular skill, except keyboard skills, and left there just like that as a rationale, it's pure and simply argument by assertion - it means nothing without providing specific evidence and examples with reference to the specific article, and without expansion in your own words it doesn't even prove that you really know what the words even mean in this context. If you honestly think that in an Afd you are not required to answer the nominator's reason for deletion, well, for one, it's hard to even put into words how wrong that is beyond what I've already explained at length above, but let's just settle on the inevitable outcome of that approach to an Afd - the article just gets deleted, because you cannot by definition have a consensus emerge here that the nominator was wrong and his argument was defeated, if you just pretend it doesn't even exist. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference how many people shout from the rooftops in here that 'it meets the GNG', 'it meets the GNG', the nomination reason takes that into account - you do not get to ignore EVENT by simply meeting the GNG, you do not get around WP:NOT by meeting the GNG, and you do not even prove that it meets the GNG by simply saying that it meets the GNG. I've addressed that specific claim elsewhere in here w.r.t. this specific article's sources btw, if you are sticking to your guns that all you need to do in an Afd is prove it meets the GNG, despite what even the GNG page says to the contrary, then you might want to start showing how you disagree with my analysis of the sources, with respect to how they even meet the GNG - i.e., their independence, their depth, their originality, and their multiplicity. MickMacNee (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! Now that was a bunch of purple flying monkeys.  Not only did the nom not take into account WP:GNG, you actually want to the reason why it passes WP:GNG explained out to you again?  Just the very in-depth secondary independent sources spanning years already in the article alone are clear indications of passing WP:GNG.  I can't believe I actually had to type that for you.  Point to me any "requirement" that we have to counter a nom's rationale.  Any.  Besides, the topic easily meets WP:AIRCRASH (hull loss, for one example), the nom's states reason for deletion.  And it easily meets WP:EVENT.  The NTSB report explains extensively about shortcomings of safety procedures on several fronts, from the air traffic control actions to poorly trained FedEx employees. And sorry MickMacNee, the NTSB is "WP:N worthy evidence".  WP:N even states so; "reports by government agencies"  Attempt Wikilawyering all you want (for our amusement), but you're not convincing. --Oakshade (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've lost me now, I have no idea what you are on about anywmore. The nom did not take into account the GNG? Why did he start the Afd by saying "Not a notable incident" then? I don't want the reason you think it meets the GNG copied and pasted yet again, I want to see you attempt to show you know what you are talking about when you blindly type 'this clearly meets the GNG'. It's not too much of an onerous task for you, surely? You can say it 'easily' meets this or that as much as you like, it's meaningless. You've finally tried to make a start at that it seems, by mentioning specific sources and policy points at least, but no, NTSB reports are simply not defacto WP:N sources just because they come from the government - to assert otherwise is a complete logical fallacy, they are produced for every single aircrash by a legal duty, irrespective of size, fatalities, impact, or any of the things that are recognised in AIRCRASH as making crashes notable, 95% of which never even meet the preconditions in AIRCRASH like hull losses etc. If all you needed to pass the GNG for an aircrash article was an NTSB report, then quite clearly we can just rip up AIRCRASH right now as a worthless piece of junk, and simply declare all crashes always 'easily meet the GNG', and turn Wikipedia into a mirror of the NTSB database, as clearly WP:NOT violating as that sounds. And because an NTSB report is not an WP:N worthy source, it is completely irrelevant for EVENT. All you are left with then is one source, a news summary of the report published on the day it came out. That's it, that's your case for 'in-depth', significant coverage 'spanning years' and showing that these changes are considered truly significant and of true, lasting notability. It's not sustainable at all. Frankly, there is not an NTSB report out there that does not make recommendations for changes or highlight errors, that's another logical fallacy on display here with all this talk of what is 'easily' this and 'easily' that, the whole point of requiring true GNG type coverage to meet EVENT is to prove without resorting to assertion and primary sources, that the real world believes they were significant, and to show that they really did have a lasting impact, making it a notable event in the encyclopoedic sense, rather than the NTSB sense. As for this idea that you do not have to address the nomination, from the Afd instructions: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination " - that makes it pretty clear. It also states, "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator" - that's a bit of an bizarre thing to have in the instructions, if you are allowed to pretend the nomination doesn't exist, no? I can if you like post a poll at WP:TALK AFD, such as 'are people as a minimum in an Afd, required to address the deletion nomination given by the nominator?' Yes or No? But frankly, I can't see that ending as anything other than a landslide yes. MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I have no idea what your arguments are since they're 100% self-contradictory. By my minor accident of including the word "not" in "Not only did the nom not take into account WP:GNG", you just explained in explicit detail why I'm supposed to respond to the nom's rationale (meeting GNG - "The nom did not take into account the GNG? Why did he start the Afd by saying "Not a notable incident" then?") and at the same time you admit in explicit detail that's exactly what I did (meeting GNG) and then went off on arguing my rationale of why it meets GNG. So much for that original straw man accusation.  To get to your one argument that's not self-contradictory, if you want to change WP:NOTABILITY to not accept government reports as significant coverage by reliable sources, you need to make your case in the WP:NOTABILITY talk page, not push your agenda in a specific AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your strawman was the extensive rebuttal of an imaginary NOT#NEWS nomination. Your tacked on vaguewave to the GNG at the end of it, does not count as a rebuttal, and I've explained at length by now, how and why you haven't given a proper argument that 'this easily meets then GNG' at all yet. You started to try in the next to last post, and the merits of that attempt can be assessed by the closer. But seriously, I have no need to go and ask WP:N to be changed, as it's beyond obvious that in this specific case, treating the mere existence of an NTSB report as defacto notability leads to a logical fallacy breaks so many other content policies, and logic itself, that it makes the assertion pretty weak. Infact, it is an assertion that ignores the fact that the GNG is a presumption - even if using an NTSB report meant it met the GNG, which it doesn't, then it would still fail the presumption clause - the GNG, a guideline, is a test of presumed notability, even if it's met, you still have to demonstrate how this article does not violate WP:NOT, a policy, and as the nominator stated in his rationale, "wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses". MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to save face with your 100% flip-flopping is not working (for a 2nd time). And since you value this WP:VAGUEWAVE essay section so much, I'm sure you'll counter Korruski's "delete" vote above which is the epitome of VAGUEWAVE... Or could it me you don't really value it and just applying it to those who disagree with you?  And I've already explained in explicit detail how this meets GNG (Korruski actually even states it passes GNG).  Just because of your failure to understand the most basic principals of WP:N and WP:GNG, I'm not going to cut and paste all the extensive coverage that this incident received just because a a single user is suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I could care less what Korruski has said, it's of no relevance to whether your argument is poor or not. I will say it one last time, by simply copying and pasting the phrasing of the GNG page here, much less repeating it endlessly, you are not showing you understand its meaning at all, let alone proving it has been met by this article (not that this is the only requirement either, but you clearly want to sidestep that issue forever). That's not explicit detail, that is not even detail tbh, it's one step up from a simple vote. From the very beginning I've given cogent and logical arguments as to how this article is not easily meeting anything, with reference to all applicable policies, and in addition, with reference to the actual sources present in the article, aswell as with reference to the basic facts of aviation in general, and how they obviously and logicaly relate to both real world and encyclopoedic notability, and by extension, WP:NOT. What have you offered in reply exactly, to be making such ludicrous accusations like IDIDNTHEARTHAT? As for this idea that VAGUEWAVE is ignorable because it's part of a (widely accepted and well understood) essay, see my advice to Bushranger. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting that you don't in fact value VAGUEWAVE and just throwing it at editors that don't agree with you (which is most). To demand that I cut and paste the entire NTSB report and all the extensive coverage this topic has received which are already in the article into this AfD to show how it passes GNG is absurd and a sign of your desperation to save face.  Sorry, I'm done with you.  Have some predictable lame ranting last word.  It won't mean you've won an argument and it will serve as demonstration of an editor wasting their time when they should devote attention to creating and improving articles. --Oakshade (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming that I've admitted this, or agreed with that, or contradicted this and flipped that, and I've done nothing of the sort, as anyone can see. Now you are claiming that what I am apparently demanding of you here is that you must cut and paste the entire text of the sources into this Afd? This is utterly wrong, all of it, as anyone who knows anything about Afd would know. Lord knows I've tried to set you straight on how to actually 'win' the argument, if that was at all possible given the state of this article, but if anything, it's me that's done wasting my time here. I just think you really don't know what argument by assertion actualy is, and certainly don't seem to know why it's wrong, and AGF or not, if anyone has been pointlessly and desperately ranting here as some sort of time-wasting replacement for actually making a valid argument, it's you. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as of user Mjroots. "severity of the accident gives sufficient notability" Elmao (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Commercial cargo flight hull-loss accident, with ongoing ramifications for crewmember emergency evacuation training which applies to both cargo and passenger aircraft. Reliable sources available.  N419 BH  06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on some of the arguments for keeping, the article appears to be in severe need of editing to actually include some of these reasons for keeping. --Born2flie (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's frankly shocking how many users voting keep here have seemingly never even read the revelant destructions for the process - WP:AFD. Making up your own notability standards, or making other similar blind assertions not backed up by any references to that effect, are certainly not an example of giving a policy backed argument, and neither is dumping a per him type vote here, referencing those exact poor arguments, as a replacement for giving their own reasoning. I hope the closer recognises this, and comments appropriately in his closing statement, otherwise, as pointless as it usually is, this will go for review. MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shocking? This AfD is not that much different than most, regardless of which way the !votes are going.  Shocking AfD discussions in times past were for truly crazy things like Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism (2006) where an obvious personal essay could still be overwhelmingly kept.  Today, weird articles can be kept but only if there is sourcing for it, see, e.g, Articles for deletion/List of cats with fraudulent diplomas.  But this article is neither weird not extreme, just a four year old article about a plane crash that does have some sources, and editors arguing over whether its notable enough to keep.--Milowent • talkblp-r  01:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's 2010, nearly 2011, not 2006. Infact, WP:EVENT was written in 2009, reflecting the evolution of Wikipedia's understanding of notability. And per that evolved understanding of notability, it's pretty clear that 'keep, it's got sources', just doesn't cut it any more, not for aircrashes, or any other type of historical event. I'm not interested in how poor other Afd's still are, that's most due to nobody not giving enough of a toss to expect better, at least from closers, as well as many voters never reading the manual before chiming in (not that a clusterfuck over cats with diplomas is a good comparison to an EVENT Afd, this Afd is a much better example, and in no small part to the fact it was closed by an admin who had to pass his Rfa giving answers reflecting the Wikipedia environment of 2009, not 2003, although even that Afd is not directly comparable either, being a news Afd about an ongoing event). Other crap is crap can be applied just as well to the procedural areas of Wikipedia as to the article space, the only relevant set point are the instructions themselves, which are more than clear with regard to vague referrals to the existence of 'some' sources, and the other practices I detailed. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mick, you do realise that 1. both the WP:PERNOM and WP:VAGUEWAVE you're so fond of accusing (and I use that word quite deliberately) other editors of using, in a "you pernommed/vaguewaved thus your opinion is invalid" way, are not part of those "instructions" or Wikipedia policies, but are merely part of an essay, and 2. your "this will go for review" comment can easily be read as "If things don't go the way I think they should I'll raise a stink"? Also, your comments here and in other aircrash AFDs at times push the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, and certainly show a distinct lack of good faith in your fellow Wikipedians. We're here to build an encyclopedia that is WP:NOTPAPER and is the sum total of human knowledge, not debate whether or not we're following proper procedure in deciding whether something that is notable is notable ENOUGH to be included - and certainly not to be lectured about how We're Doing It Wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? From WP:NOTPAPER - "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.". As much as it's always been a good catchphrase, 'building the sum of all knowledge' has never been a content policy, or an inclusion criteria (we don't have any, just exclusion criteria, like EVENT, which like it or not, is how we decide whether things are notable enough or not). And I don't know what instructions you've been reading, by my copy states: "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies.", and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", and "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines" aswell as "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments " and "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy" And I've barely even gotten part way down the page at this point. So, if your argument is that you can ignore all of that just because PERNOM and VAGUEWAVE is an essay, then if it makes you feel any better, when you see me say PERNOM or VAGUEWAVE, then substitute it in your internal monologue with the parts of the instructions that they are clearly derived from, i.e. make your own arguments, make them referring to policy, and don't make them as blind assertions. We are not paper, but that does not mean people have to write the same objections out long hand every single time, instead of using shortcuts that mean the exact same thing. I can assume good faith in someone trying to argue an Afd point properly, but in a content policy misguided way, but I cannot assume good faith in people who try to argue an Afd by throwing out PERNOMS and VAGUEWAVES, and then when challenged on that, pretending that those are in anyway decent arguments or per the instructions, and then throwing out NOTPAPER and accusations of incivilty for good measure, as if that helps your case. My review comment is a statement of procedural fact, take it to WP:WQA if you feel otherwise, but I can tell you now, you would be wasting your time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making my case for me better than I ever could. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how, but meh, it's clear you aren't willing to defend your ideas about what is and is not a good Afd argument. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per excellent arguments by Mjroots and N419BH.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, There is no evidence that this was a non-commercial flight. There was significant, reliable coverage of the incident, and "the accident involved hull loss", per WP:AIRCRASH Ng.j (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the NTSB report brief states the flight was indeed a commercial revenue-generating flight conducted under 14 CFR 121 (the same regulations under which passenger flights are conducted by U.S. air carriers). Also note the airframe damage in that brief: "Aircraft Damage: Destroyed". So we have reliable sources for a commercial aircraft accident which destroyed a large airplane.  N419 BH  03:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable as a plane crash. They changed the rules because of this one, so it had a notable and lasting affect.  Ample coverage as well.   D r e a m Focus  09:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per N419BH. The accident is clearly a fairly severe one as it resulted in a hull loss. The changes in safety protocols means the impact of the event is longer lasting than is the case with routine news events. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per  N419 BH and  D r e a m Focus . Much more interesting than . Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.